4 ms·

It's funny to contrast Greenwald's situation with that of people in the US press who hate his guts, all while they bemoan the Trump admin's threats to press fre

It's funny to contrast Greenwald's situation with that of people in the US press who hate his guts, all while they bemoan the Trump admin's threats to press freedom. This is what happens to journalists who actually speak truth to power, rather than flatter it while indulging in a bunch of self-congratulatory theater.

sodosopa 7y ago
It’s hard to align him with “speaking truth to power” when he was a part of the Russia propaganda machine and their takeover of Wikileaks.
- GavinMcG 7y ago
  Why does it have to be one or the other?
  - padseeker 7y ago
    If you're 'speaking truth to power' only when it suits your already formed opinion, then you're not really speaking truth.
    - Supermancho 7y ago
      > If you're 'speaking truth to power' only when it suits your already formed opinion, then you're not really speaking truth. So truth now has another filter. Only what padseeker thinks is fairly presented? /snark Truth can be communicated many different ways. The interpretation of that truth as non-truth or overvaluing the information or failing to hear out other aspects (because it's presented a specific way) is a failure of the recipient, not the sender. Truth is truth, even if you don't like how it was presented.
    - the_absurdist 7y ago
      So having bias necessarily makes one's argument untrue?
    - GavinMcG 7y ago
      You're speaking truth whenever what you're saying is true.
      - cyorir 7y ago
        Sure. But you can still be lying by omission. Does the phrase "speaking truth to power" still apply if you are also lying by omission?
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        stanferder 7y ago
        Yes. The true statement remains true.
        iamnothere 7y ago
        I challenge you to find a single journalist who isn't "lying by omission". Even the most ethical journalist in the world would have limited time, a limited network of sources, a reader base that prefers coverage of specific issues, and personal interests that drive the direction of their reporting. From my perspective, accurate reporting on a limited set of issues is much preferred over "truthy" reporting on a broader set of issues.
        cyorir 7y ago
        > I challenge you to find a single journalist who isn't "lying by omission". If we're issuing challenges, then I challenge you to prove that every single journalist IS lying by omission. A lie by omission is intentionally leaving out facts to misrepresent the truth. Another way to describe it is that a lie by omission is the cherry-picking of facts. This differs from providing a limited subset of the facts for other reasons. You may not have all the facts yourself, you may not be certain of every fact you have, you may be practically limited by the amount of information that you can convey to your audience (perhaps because the audience only wants to read a 1-page article instead of 10, or perhaps because you don't have the time to write 10 pages instead of 1). In none of these cases are you necessarily lying by omission, as long as you choose to present facts that are representative of the broader set of facts that you have instead of cherry-picking facts to match a given narrative. You may still have implicit bias; that does not mean you are lying by omission because you are not necessarily intending to be biased. Do you believe that every single journalist is intentionally skewing the truth and cherry-picking their facts to match a hidden agenda? I don't.
draw_down 7y ago
You're right, of course.
bearcobra 7y ago
Love or hate Greenwald, Brazil has less press freedom than the United States and Trump has made numerous statements indicating he would like to impose more restrictions on the press. https://rsf.org/en/ranking https://rsf.org/en/ranking
giacaglia 7y ago
The fact is that he worked direct with the hackers to hack government information. He is gonna go through the judicial system as everyone does
- AndrewBissell 7y ago
  "Everyone" Yes, we all remember when the CIA officers responsible for the torture program were prosecuted, or when James Clapper was indicted for lying to Congress, or when the Boeing executives who knowingly sold a plane with safety flaws were brought up on criminal charges. Imagine the threat to the rule of law if we allowed offenders like Greenwald to go unpunished!

sodosopa 7y ago

It’s hard to align him with “speaking truth to power” when he was a part of the Russia propaganda machine and their takeover of Wikileaks.

GavinMcG 7y ago
Why does it have to be one or the other?
- padseeker 7y ago
  If you're 'speaking truth to power' only when it suits your already formed opinion, then you're not really speaking truth.
  - Supermancho 7y ago
    > If you're 'speaking truth to power' only when it suits your already formed opinion, then you're not really speaking truth. So truth now has another filter. Only what padseeker thinks is fairly presented? /snark Truth can be communicated many different ways. The interpretation of that truth as non-truth or overvaluing the information or failing to hear out other aspects (because it's presented a specific way) is a failure of the recipient, not the sender. Truth is truth, even if you don't like how it was presented.
  - the_absurdist 7y ago
    So having bias necessarily makes one's argument untrue?
  - GavinMcG 7y ago
    You're speaking truth whenever what you're saying is true.
    - cyorir 7y ago
      Sure. But you can still be lying by omission. Does the phrase "speaking truth to power" still apply if you are also lying by omission?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - stanferder 7y ago
        Yes. The true statement remains true.
      - iamnothere 7y ago
        I challenge you to find a single journalist who isn't "lying by omission". Even the most ethical journalist in the world would have limited time, a limited network of sources, a reader base that prefers coverage of specific issues, and personal interests that drive the direction of their reporting. From my perspective, accurate reporting on a limited set of issues is much preferred over "truthy" reporting on a broader set of issues.
        cyorir 7y ago
        > I challenge you to find a single journalist who isn't "lying by omission". If we're issuing challenges, then I challenge you to prove that every single journalist IS lying by omission. A lie by omission is intentionally leaving out facts to misrepresent the truth. Another way to describe it is that a lie by omission is the cherry-picking of facts. This differs from providing a limited subset of the facts for other reasons. You may not have all the facts yourself, you may not be certain of every fact you have, you may be practically limited by the amount of information that you can convey to your audience (perhaps because the audience only wants to read a 1-page article instead of 10, or perhaps because you don't have the time to write 10 pages instead of 1). In none of these cases are you necessarily lying by omission, as long as you choose to present facts that are representative of the broader set of facts that you have instead of cherry-picking facts to match a given narrative. You may still have implicit bias; that does not mean you are lying by omission because you are not necessarily intending to be biased. Do you believe that every single journalist is intentionally skewing the truth and cherry-picking their facts to match a hidden agenda? I don't.

draw_down 7y ago

You're right, of course.

bearcobra 7y ago

Love or hate Greenwald, Brazil has less press freedom than the United States and Trump has made numerous statements indicating he would like to impose more restrictions on the press. https://rsf.org/en/ranking https://rsf.org/en/ranking

giacaglia 7y ago

The fact is that he worked direct with the hackers to hack government information. He is gonna go through the judicial system as everyone does

AndrewBissell 7y ago
"Everyone" Yes, we all remember when the CIA officers responsible for the torture program were prosecuted, or when James Clapper was indicted for lying to Congress, or when the Boeing executives who knowingly sold a plane with safety flaws were brought up on criminal charges. Imagine the threat to the rule of law if we allowed offenders like Greenwald to go unpunished!